WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCILS OF AMERICA

CONFERENCE SUMMATION

National Conference

January 2005

by

Jane Wales

President, World Affairs Council of Northern California

This remarkable conference took place against the backdrop of a fresh, distinctive logo, or mark. It had been described to us as a “swoosh”. But Tony Mitchell of Booz Allen saw in our logo the earth emerging from an eclipse. And indeed you can see the rays of the sun beginning to illuminate the globe – just as Councils across the country seek to illuminate issues, to enlighten fellow citizens.

So this logo and this conference revealed different things to each of us. It was a true learning experience. And we are a true learning community.

We heard from one outstanding speaker after another. And for that we are grateful to Jerry Leach. Please join me in thanking him for all he has done.

Success is only possible when there is a successful team. Let us thank Ljiljana and her colleagues for all they have done - and the good humor and grace with which they have done it.

Former Congressman Lee Hamilton of the 9-11 Commission started us off arguing that:

• Intelligence should not be driven by policy predilections, but rather intelligence should inform policy;
• There is no substitute for integrity at the top;
• The new National Intelligence Director should tell the president what he or she knows, what he or she doesn’t know, what he or she thinks s/he knows – and then leave the room when the policy discussions begin.

After providing an exquisite analysis, and making forceful recommendations, this Indiana Congressman modestly ended by saying “I’ve told you everything I know – and I’ll quit,” reminding us that others should be that humble in briefing the President.

Brent Scowcroft – twice National Security Advisory (to Gerald Ford and George Herbert Walker Bush) and mentor to Condi Rice – spoke of the danger of weapons of mass destruction.

He noted that it is messy analytically and unwise politically to lump together nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as though they represent a single, undifferentiated threat.

He focused us on the nuclear danger, and noted that it is those countries that are insecure; that sense their lack of security; and have no way to assure that security, that seek nuclear weapons. That explains Iran’s nuclear ambitions, for it is in a dangerous neighborhood. But, what is the source of North Korea’s insecurity? What does it see as its vulnerability? And to whom?

In both acute cases – North Korea and Iran – General Scowcroft was not encouraged or encouraging. He thought the most important lever, or point of entry, was to control the nuclear fuel cycle. In both cases he would guarantee that uranium would be provided for nuclear power, in exchange for IAEA inspections and the ability to remove the spent fuel rods. In essence he would make the offer we made to North Korea in 1994, but with an amended, tightened Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which recognized that the technology is relatively easy. It is the weapons material that is hard to come by and can be denied – in fact, must be denied.

We had breakout sessions on Iran and North Korea that were brilliant. So I will turn to Alex Lari and Marilyn McAfee for summaries. Before I do – staying with the plenaries for the moment – let me turn to the conceptual framework within which to consider these responses. That framework was provided by Charles Krauthammer, columnist for the Washington Post. He offered four schools of thought.

The first was isolationism, which he associated with Patrick Buchanan, and described as a minority view.

The second was Liberal Internationalism, which he associated with Bill Clinton. This is an order in which states and societies are bound together by a web of relationships—commercial relationships, treaty relationships—that give them more in common than in conflict.

The third is Realism, which he associated with Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft. This is a competitive world of balance of power politics. He called it a “billiard ball” approach, in which we are concerned about what states do externally, but not about how they organize themselves or act internally.

He associated the fourth school of thought with President Bush and called it Democratic Globalism or neo-conservatism. Others call it idealism. It is values-based rather than interest-based. This is an order in which you must change the environment from which dangers emerge. The goal, therefore, is to abolish tyranny wherever, whenever.

But Krauthammer offered his own fifth school of thought, which he called Democratic Realism. It is a merging of the third and fourth schools of realism and idealism. It argues for concentrating our resources on those areas that are the source of imminent danger, which he identified as the Arab and Muslim worlds. And it allows for provisional alliances with undemocratic states like Pakistan and Uzbekistan. In this sense his vision did not actually differ from US government practice.

One problem however: when asked to apply this concept to the current test cases of North Korea and Iran he demurred. He threw up his hands, and declared it “too late.” Having denied himself the tools of negotiations and agreements, he was without options.

While Krauthammer described the enemy in terms of social movements and countries – Islamists and a rising China – Laurie Garrett described the threat in terms of spontaneous natural dangers, in particular the HIV/AIDS pandemic, arguing that we need to organize ourselves in new ways for transnational governance – that we need to muster the leadership will and financial resources to meet such modern-day threats to and requirements of security more broadly defined.

[Added by Jim Jones: She made the case for the education and empowerment of women, as a central strategy for combating HIV/AIDS]

Dennis Ross focused brilliantly on the spark that ignites: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The opportunity that exists with the election of Abu Mazen and the reelection of President Bush is one that should be seized. This experienced negotiator made clear the leadership role the United States must play.

Senator Chuck Hagel got the message and spoke to the necessities of leadership, ticking them off:

• First, strengthening alliances;
• Second, pursuing both short and long-term strategies in the “War on Terror”, using intelligence, diplomacy, and the political authority that comes with cooperation…but also combating poverty and contributing to indigenous political reform.
• Third, he argued for forceful non-proliferation efforts, like expanding the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and providing both carrots and sticks in dealing with North Korea and Iran;
• Fourth, he would like to see us eliminate the twin deficits and advance free trade, arguing that we must succeed in the Doha Round.
• Fifth, he argues for getting serious about public diplomacy – not spin, nor marketing, but exposure through exchange programs. In his most powerful and plaintive statement, he said in response to a question “if we lose the trust and confidence of the world, then we are lost.”
•  Sixth, he wanted to reorganize our foreign policy structure, and here he telescoped change, leaving much unsaid.
• Seventh, he wanted us to step up to the world’s big problems, Global Climate Change being chief among them.
• Eighth, he defines relations with China, India and Russia as “shaping.
• Ninth, he wanted new energy and new commitment to hemispheric relations, in a tipping of the hat to our former Ambassador to Mexico, Jim Jones.
• Tenth, echoing Dennis Ross, he argued for US reengagement in the Middle East peace process including economic development support for the Palestinians.
• Eleventh, he noted our interest in ensuring that Iran does not become a failed state.
• Twelfth, he called for the right balance between power and purpose, noting that Iraq should give us pause about the utility of the use of force.
• Finally he spoke to the need for an American consensus, asking us to be a voice for the national interest, so that policy is not simply the sum total of various special interests.

Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria said this constitutes a duty for us, for the globalized world that is emerging may be of our creation, but not quite what we imagined. It is not being remade in our image. It has adapted to the new realities of economic integration. It has restructured itself. It has realigned itself. But it has done so according to its own image, preserving traditional values of language and culture and creating hybrid models for governance.

This is a world that -- if we fail to understand it, to engage it, be part of it as it is, rather than as we wish it would be – it may go beyond us and leave us behind, like successful offspring who never write, never call. That will happen if, having created the conditions for a globalized world, we fail to do the job of globalizing America.

That is the task of councils across the country. That is our duty.

You may be wondering why I did not sum up the remarks of Colin Powell at the Chairman’s dinner. There are three reasons why. First, I obey my masters who tasked me with the conference, not the dinner’s proceedings. Second, no one could do Colin Powell justice, least of all me. Third, there needs to be some mystery so that next year you will be so good as to buy a ticket or, better yet, buy a table for the Chairman’s dinner.

Suffice it to say that the former Secretary has bought himself a new Corvette, and the WACA swoosh really becomes him.

Now, having said all I know, I will quit, but not without calling upon colleagues who chaired sessions to sum up key points made.